Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

There stellar collapse theory does not work as expected without metals to act as heatsinks, cooling the gas down. They now need metals from supernovas to explain "efficient" star formation. Previously all that was needed was the cooldown over time from the original energy of the big bang. In studying a galaxy they compare the galaxy's metallicity to the metallicity of the sun, and define the sun as normal. So in studying these galaxies with 10% less metallicity than the sun, they find major problems with star formation theory. The stars cannot be generated in the speed and numbers shown in models. So given the effect of a change as small as 10%, and assuming the original galaxies had zero metal content as is alleged, likely no stars could form from the gravitational collapse. Electric currents can generate a Z-pinch regardless of thermodynamics.

They also cannot explain distributions of supernovas nor the reason for varying metallicities in galaxies, or any proof that they have generated metals at all, nor which elements would be produced and in what ratios and molecular forms.

Just wanted to share my thoughts on another study that the mainstream is struggling with understanding.

"In galaxies short on metals, such as the two observed and those in the early universe, the gas clouds may not cool down rapidly enough, making star formation far less efficient than it is today, when metals are more abundant.

Shi said that some theoretical models produce too many stars compared with the galaxies observed in the early universe. The reason may well be that they assume the same type of efficiency in star formation as galaxies today. The new findings suggest that lower metallicity plays a role in stunting the birth of stars.

"We need to modify our theories of star formation, because the inefficiencies were not expected for the right reason," Elmegreen said. "It also means we have to modify our theories about how molecules form, and perhaps our understanding of the molecular abundances in the galaxy … The Shi et al. result was surprising, so we have more work to do."

But we already know that they will only modify their theory of star formation for as long at it keeps everything they already believe about star formation in general.

That they need to impart "metallicity" in order to "cool the collapsing gas down so it can continue to collapse" is highly specious and reaching for straws in my opinion. The findings of the low metallicity in alleged early universe star formation processes should falsify their entire theory but they will largely keep their theory anyway.

Frantic wrote:Electric currents can generate a Z-pinch regardless of thermodynamics.

Yes, but remember that z-pinches only consolidate like charges, and these repel each other electrostatically. So there is definitely a lot of z-pinching going on in the Universe. For example, in bipolar jets from quasars, the jets stay organized for extremely long periods of time. This is not a prediction of thermodynamics, because the hydrostatic pressure inside the jet should blow it apart, and not allow it to stay consolidated as it streams through the interstellar medium. But the jets ARE a prediction of EM, if those are charged particles, and if they are moving fast enough to generate a z-pinch, which keeps them organized in spite of the hydrostatic pressure. Ah but eventually, bipolar jets encounter enough friction to slow them down, and the z-pinch relaxes (because the strength of a magnetic field is a function of the speed of the charged particles). So the jets fall apart in Herbig-Haro objects. And bipolar jets are not stellar nurseries. So precisely where we DO see z-pinching is precisely where we DO NOT see star formation.

I agree that stars do not form because of gravitational collapse. In fact, in Newtonian mechanics, there IS NO gravitational instability. Rather, there is a gravitational equilibrium, which is the opposite of an instability. When a gas is compressed due to gravity, the gravity field gets more dense, which means even more gravity. But at the same time, the hydrostatic pressure goes up because of the compression, and that pressure opposes the gravitational collapse. Now, gravity obeys the inverse square law, but the increase in pressure due to compression is a cubic function, since it's a straight function of the volume that is getting compressed. As a consequence, the hydrostatic pressure (i.e., the cubic function) opposing the collapse increases faster than the gravity (i.e., the square function) encouraging it. Thus the matter cannot collapse just because of gravity, as long as the ideal gas laws are still in effect. This is why the Earth's atmosphere doesn't collapse, in a gravity field far more dense than in a collapsing gas cloud. Gravity and hydrostatic pressure always achieve an equilibrium.

But by the same token, that gas cloud isn't going to collapse due to a z-pinch. Remove the hydrostatic pressure, and replace it with the repulsion of like charges, and you get the same effect. The magnetic force is pushing inward, but the electrostatic repulsion is pushing outward, and at less than the speed of light, the electric force is far stronger than the magnetic force. So there isn't any instability enabling the full collapse of the gas into a star. Rather, there is an equilibrium between the electric and magnetic forces that enables some consolidation, but not a full collapse.

This is what led me to investigate other possible EM forces that ARE capable of causing gas cloud collapses.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

I of course have no idea what the true mechanism for collapse would be. My thoughts were that a Z-pinch might provide the catalyst to consolidate matter to the point it could collapse if temperature could not.

I agree with you Charles, I have never understood any collapse theory that could create a star. That a force of gravity could pull all the matter together and at the same time provide the energy released as well is hard to beleive. Gravitational equilibrium actually makes sense.

This is what led me to investigate other possible EM forces that ARE capable of causing gas cloud collapses.

If an EM force is powerful enough to begin the collapse, do you believe within a certain radius, gravitational collapse will occur? And can gravitational collapse provide any portion of the radiation output?

Since you have a model of an internally powered star, I am assuming you expect an EM force as a catalyst to a gravitational collapse, otherwise some continuous external force would have to keep the matter condensed.

The thing I really took away from all this is, the universe is most likely not cooling down or expanding if these results are credible. And thermodynamics alone, now admittedly, cannot explain star formation.

Frantic wrote:Since you have a model of an internally powered star, I am assuming you expect an EM force as a catalyst to a gravitational collapse, otherwise some continuous external force would have to keep the matter condensed.

No, gravity is always a small factor compared to the electric force. So it isn't an electric catalyst to a gravitational collapse. It's an electrostatic collapse, period.

In the resting condition, that "gas cloud" is actually what's called a "dusty plasma". It's weakly ionized, and there are negatively charged solid dust grains, surrounded by positively charged halos of gas/plasma. These are called Debye cells. They are net neutral, but I ran the numbers, and found that there is a slight electrostatic repulsion between Debye cells. If you calculate the forces between each particle in one cell and each particle in another cell, you find that all of the pluses and minuses basically cancel each other out. The net repulsion comes from the inverse square law as applied to the electric force. In a Debye cell, the negatively charged nucleus is repelled from the nucleus in a neighboring cell, but attracted to its positively charged halo. Likewise, the +ions in the halos are attracted to the negatively charged nuclei, and repelled by the other halos. Now remember the inverse square law. The aspects of Debye cells that are the closest to each other are the halos, which are all like-charged (i.e., positive). Thus their repulsion counts for more than the other attractions, and with only this taken into account, we'd expect all dusty plasmas to be slowly expanding, not rapidly collapsing.

To understand why dusty plasmas collapse, we have to take a close look at the precise conditions in which they collapse, because they don't just do this at random. Rather, dusty plasmas only collapse when there is a nearby supernova, or when two clouds collide. So what is that going to do? It will strip the halos off of the nuclei. The following illustration shows the resting condition on the left, with neatly-organized positive halos around each negative dust grain. (This is the condition in which there is a slight repulsion between the cells.) On the right, the halos have been stripped off of the dust grains by the collision of two clouds, or by a cloud absorbing the ejecta from a supernova.

So I went back and recalculated the electrostatic forces, and found that when the halos get stripped, the net force goes from slightly repulsive to insanely attractive. This is because with the halos stripped, all of the repulsion between halos is gone. With the halos in the space between the nuclei, there is nothing but attraction. The nearest neighbors to all of the positive halos are negative nuclei, and opposites attract. And the force is way, way more powerful than gravity. Since we know that dusty plasmas are definitely ionized (that's why we call them plasmas), and since we know that normally they don't collapse, and since we know that cloud collisions are the trigger, and since the maths show a massive body force when the halos get stripped off of the nuclei, there is little doubt that this is the force that causes dusty plasmas to collapse into stars.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

This is probably an obvious question, but how many stars are formed in a collapse event? I imagine in your scenario that you would end up with multiples isolated collapsing areas, which would be consistent with binary and multi-star systems.

In the collapse, is a double layer formed from the repulsion of + plasma as it condenses on to a negative nuclei? Or is it first a collapse than your electron degeneracy pressure creates a cathode nucleus with the electrons as the outer layer? I think I am close to understanding what you said.

Frantic wrote:This is probably an obvious question, but how many stars are formed in a collapse event? I imagine in your scenario that you would end up with multiples isolated collapsing areas, which would be consistent with binary and multi-star systems.

I agree. The standard model somehow got stuck on the "accretion disc" thing, which makes it one big entity moving toward one center. From this, they get one star in the middle, and (supposedly) some planets orbiting the central star that (supposedly) condensed within the accretion disc before the star ignited. But there are major problems with that, not the least of which being that it doesn't explain multi-star systems. So I'm going with a spherical dusty plasma that collapses, perhaps with very little angular momentum. The amount of angular momentum in our solar system is virtually nothing compared to the total momentum of the imploding dusty plasma, where almost all of the motion was straight toward the center. So the accretion disc model actually doesn't even get invoked if we're looking at the overall momentum -- it was a sphere, not a disc.

But just because I'm thinking in terms of a spherical implosion doesn't mean that everything has to converge on precisely the same point. Considering the distances in question, very slight irregularities in the dusty plasma will result in multiple implosion points, and thus multiple stars will form. I actually subscribe to the fundamental tenet of "Stellar Metamorphosis", that all of the planets used to be stars too, but they just burned out sooner. So I believe that even our solar system was once a multi-star system.

Frantic wrote:In the collapse, is a double layer formed from the repulsion of + plasma as it condenses on to a negative nuclei? Or is it first a collapse than your electron degeneracy pressure creates a cathode nucleus with the electrons as the outer layer? I think I am close to understanding what you said.

You second statement is more accurate, but I should fill in some blanks.

In the late stages of the collapse, the temperature will become sufficient to fully ionize everything, and all of those dust particles will get converted to plasma. So that electrostatic body force between Debye cells will be gone, and the final consolidation of matter will be on the basis of the momentum already developed, not because the original body force is still pulling inward.

Next comes a question that nobody else is even asking, but which I realized was an inescapable consequence of the physics. Why doesn't the imploding plasma just bounce off of itself, and rebound back out to its original dimensions? (Analogously, if you set up 1000 tennis ball guns pointed at your desired point of convergence, and fire them all at the same time, when they get to the point of convergence, they're all going to bounce off of each other -- they aren't going to just stick together.) So, with any momentum at all, the plasma should overshoot the hydrostatic equilibrium. But then the excess kinetic energy should get converted to hydrostatic potential, which then gets converted back to kinetic energy in the opposite direction. In other words, the matter should bounce off of itself. Note that these are non-lossy conversions, because when the energy store is hydrostatic potential, you don't lose anything in collisional thermalization -- that just adds to the hydrostatic pressure as well, and nothing is lost. So the rebound should be absolutely perfect. In other words, we know that dusty plasmas collapse, and that stars result. But embedded in that is a tough question, and Newtonian mechanics can't touch it.

Then I realized that there had to be a new set of factors that kick in, to get the plasma to latch onto itself. So far, the only mechanism that I've found is electron degeneracy pressure. At extreme pressures, electrons are forced out, leaving positive ions behind. Thus charged double-layers have been created. Interestingly, the force between these layers will be enormous. So that's the force that allows the plasma to latch onto itself -- the electric force between charged double-layers.

So an electrostatic body force between Debye cells creates the inward momentum. This force goes away at the center, because everything gets converted to pure plasma, and just the existing momentum finishes the consolidation. But then the rebound is prevented by charged double-layers that are created by electron degeneracy pressure, and presto -- you got yourself a star.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

So an electrostatic body force between Debye cells creates the inward momentum. This force goes away at the center, because everything gets converted to pure plasma, and just the existing momentum finishes the consolidation. But then the rebound is prevented by charged double-layers that are created by electron degeneracy pressure, and presto -- you got yourself a star.

One more question if you will. Is the degeneracy pressure a continual process, such that more electrons are released over-time maintaining the double layer through an internal current?

Frantic wrote:Electric currents can generate a Z-pinch regardless of thermodynamics.

Yes, but remember that z-pinches only consolidate like charges, and these repel each other electrostatically. So there is definitely a lot of z-pinching going on in the Universe. For example, in bipolar jets from quasars, the jets stay organized for extremely long periods of time. This is not a prediction of thermodynamics, because the hydrostatic pressure inside the jet should blow it apart, and not allow it to stay consolidated as it streams through the interstellar medium. But the jets ARE a prediction of EM, if those are charged particles, and if they are moving fast enough to generate a z-pinch, which keeps them organized in spite of the hydrostatic pressure. Ah but eventually, bipolar jets encounter enough friction to slow them down, and the z-pinch relaxes (because the strength of a magnetic field is a function of the speed of the charged particles). So the jets fall apart in Herbig-Haro objects. And bipolar jets are not stellar nurseries. So precisely where we DO see z-pinching is precisely where we DO NOT see star formation.

Valuable info.

CharlesChandler wrote:I agree that stars do not form because of gravitational collapse. In fact, in Newtonian mechanics, there IS NO gravitational instability. Rather, there is a gravitational equilibrium, which is the opposite of an instability. When a gas is compressed due to gravity, the gravity field gets more dense, which means even more gravity. But at the same time, the hydrostatic pressure goes up because of the compression, and that pressure opposes the gravitational collapse. Now, gravity obeys the inverse square law, but the increase in pressure due to compression is a cubic function, since it's a straight function of the volume that is getting compressed. As a consequence, the hydrostatic pressure (i.e., the cubic function) opposing the collapse increases faster than the gravity (i.e., the square function) encouraging it. Thus the matter cannot collapse just because of gravity, as long as the ideal gas laws are still in effect. This is why the Earth's atmosphere doesn't collapse, in a gravity field far more dense than in a collapsing gas cloud. Gravity and hydrostatic pressure always achieve an equilibrium.

You put this concept to words so well, the best I've read. Why is a gravitational collapse debunking scenario never said this well? The points are staggeringly simple and well-said: 1. There is no such thing as gravitational collapse as an equilibrium state is perpetually maintained with gravity and 2. It is the inverse square of gravity versus the cube of the pressure of compression, both increasing, that prevents an alleged collapse. A collapse is then a red herring, a false statement, and a non-reality. That also adds another item of contention that removes the concept of the black hole from being a reality. This should appear in educational curricula.

CharlesChandler wrote:But by the same token, that gas cloud isn't going to collapse due to a z-pinch. Remove the hydrostatic pressure, and replace it with the repulsion of like charges, and you get the same effect. The magnetic force is pushing inward, but the electrostatic repulsion is pushing outward, and at less than the speed of light, the electric force is far stronger than the magnetic force. So there isn't any instability enabling the full collapse of the gas into a star. Rather, there is an equilibrium between the electric and magnetic forces that enables some consolidation, but not a full collapse.

This is what led me to investigate other possible EM forces that ARE capable of causing gas cloud collapses.

So are gas cloud collapses of any kind actually observed in the lab or in nature?

Frantic wrote:Is the degeneracy pressure a continual process, such that more electrons are released over-time maintaining the double layer through an internal current?

At a steady pressure, there isn't any current. You can think of it like pressing down on a sponge -- the water comes out, and stays out, until you remove your hand, when the sponge pulls the water back into it. This is why we're calling them current-free double-layers (CFDLs). They are charge-separated layers, but the separation mechanism persists, preventing the current that would otherwise definitely flow as a consequence of the electric field. But if something does alter the pressure, then there will be currents.

viscount aero wrote:That also adds another item of contention that removes the concept of the black hole from being a reality.

Yes, and the centrifugal force which should prevent the collapse, which even Einstein pointed out. And then, of course, there is the neutron star BS, wherein supposedly the atomic structure undergoes gravitational collapse, and everything is fused into one big lump of neutronium. (Must have been some righteous blotter going around!)

viscount aero wrote:This should appear in educational curricula.

They're too busy implementing the Common Rotten Core Mathematics to have time for stuff like this.

viscount aero wrote:So are gas cloud collapses of any kind actually observed in the lab or in nature?

Gases/plasmas can be compressed into supercritical fluids in the lab, and inside stars. But that isn't a gravitational collapse.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

@Frantic RE: nickel bubblesPer my reading of the article, neither defending nor attacking it... The blobs of radioactive nickle decayed into iron after the explosion. The decay released photons that pushed away other materials creating voids, the 'bubbles'. They think this is exciting because it suggests that the nickel in the core of the star, when it exploded, was not arranged in a uniform way. Furthermore, the bubbles they believe they are observing give them data to analysis and attempt to work out the internal structure of the star at detonation. Hence the references to being a bomb squad.

Thanksdchn13. Would the radioactive nickel traveling at supersonic speeds form a shock wave? The nickel travels faster than the gaseous and other materials. does it slow down to the point that it embeds with the other materials and then creates the bubbles? It seems if its traveling faster, the nickel would travel out further than the gas and would not be within the cloud to decay and form bubbles.

@Fosborn_

at first they thought it would be inside out explosion since the wrong elements were on the outside, due to their onion skin theory,they speculated it must have exploded inside out. They always correlate their observations to pre-existing theories. Now they admit the onion skin theory must be wrong to some extent. They hang on to their theory and interpret results in the way that fits their theory. These articles are a good demonstration of this.